Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 31, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Iowa, the Court of Appeals of Iowa, reversed an assault case brought by a student because the lower court “erred in instructing the jury on standard of care.”  The case arose when ongoing verbal harassment against a student while in middle school and high school “turn physical.”  “While (the student) sat in language arts class, she claims (the assaulting student) began to touch her—at first by putting his hand on her thigh, then by putting his hand in the holes of her ripped jeans, and inside her waist band. And ultimately, (the assaulting student) allegedly digitally penetrated (her). According to (the victim), this continued daily for some time.”  The student alleged that the school district was negligent “for failing to prevent the assault and harassment.”  At trial, the court gave the following instruction to the jury:  “Negligence means failure to use ordinary care… Ordinary care is the care which a reasonably careful person would use under similar circumstances…  Negligence is doing something a reasonably careful person would not do under similar circumstances, or failing to do something a reasonably careful person would do under similar circumstances.”  The appellate court reversed the result of the case, remanding the dispute for a new trial based upon the proper standard of care: “School districts have a duty of reasonable care in providing for the safety of students from the harmful actions of fellow students, a teacher, or other third persons… the nature of the duty the school owed to the student (is) a duty of care arising out of the school’s in loco parentis status… and requires the school district to exercise the same standard of care toward the children that a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances.”  Applied to the facts of this case, the appellate court held that “the instruction the jury received was a material misstatement of the law, so we conclude reversal is required.”  Safris v. Urbandale Community School District

— In California, officials in the Savanna School District are implementing “the InformaCast Wearable Alert Badge system across its four schools, providing staff members with a discreet way to request assistance during emergencies while helping school administrators and emergency responders respond more quickly.”  School officials state that “the device is worn by staff members during the school day…staff can activate an emergency alert by pressing a button on the badge, allowing administrators and emergency responders to quickly begin coordinating a response.”

— In Kentucky, students in Hardin County students “will no longer be allowed to bring metal or glass water bottles onto school campuses or buses.”  Officials state that they “reached this decision after reviewing growing safety and operational concerns.”

— In Colorado, schools are being retrofitted to include “a secure vestibule.”  School officials believe that “it’s a critical step to keep schools safe.”  It “allows the front office to control who’s coming in and have a little bit more surety that that the person has good intentions to be in the building.”  It includes “ballistic-rated wall board… glazed ballistic-rated glazing (windows)…(and) film that’s on the exterior doors that is also rated for ballistics.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 30, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Illinois, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed and validated the decision of school officials to limit a parent’s access to campus “at his child’s school.”  The case arose when the parent “filed two applications to be placed on the District’s “Approved Volunteer List” so that he could be a chaperone for his child’s school events.”  The school has a policy that “categorically bans applicants with criminal histories from serving as school volunteers, regardless of the specific circumstances surrounding the underlying convictions.”  The lower court held that the parent did not have a right “in volunteering for school activities.”  It further held that “the District’s policy of excluding applicants with criminal histories from volunteering was supported by a rational basis—that is, ensuring the safety of its students.”  On appeal, the ruling was affirmed because “although parents have a fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children… there is no fundamental right for parents to be playground monitors or to attend school functions, and schools have valid interests in limiting the parental presence.”  The appellate court emphasized that the school policy was “rationally related to its legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its students.”  Henson v. Dwight Common School District No. 232.

NOTE: The Court of Appeals did not formally publish this opinion under Fed. R. P. 32.1.  This rule simply says that “If a party cites a federal judicial opinion, order, judgment, or other written disposition that is not available in a publicly accessible electronic database, the party must file and serve a copy of that opinion, order, judgment, or disposition with the brief or other paper in which it is cited.”

— In Colorado, the Alyssa’s Youth Concussion and Mental Health Protection Act “expands the training youth coaches must receive on recognizing concussions to include more information on the mental health of young athletes. If an athlete suffers a concussion, the law requires coaches to explain to their parents or guardians what changes in their mental health might happen as a result, including mood swings, irritability, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or suicidal ideation.”

— In Congress, the House of Representatives has introduced “the Seizure Safe Schools Act, legislation to promote seizure safety and ensure that elementary and secondary schools can safely care for students with seizure disorders.”  Under the provisions of the legislation, “the U.S. Secretary of Education, in cooperation with the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, (is authorized) to issue guidance on how elementary schools and secondary schools can promote seizure safety at school and safely care for students with epilepsy or other seizure disorders.”

— In Oklahoma, Tulsa Public Schools have announced a “no fight zone,” and a “calm rooms” safety initiative.  Under this policy “students can expect to see more “calm rooms” for de-escalation.”  School officials state that “the plan is to stop fights before they start… (and) to have a calm room in every building.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 17, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Wisconsin, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin rejected the claim of a student that he was “bored with being stuck in school suspension all day” so he created a hit list and a plan.  The list “identified multiple first names” and various other details.  The appellate court affirmed the adjudication, ruling that the written notes constituted “a “true threat” for purposes of the First Amendment.”  The appellate court agreed with the lower court that after the U.S. Supreme Court case of Counterman v. Colorado, the elements of a true threat include (1) a threat to “cause the death of or bodily harm to any person or to a person’s property;” (2) creates “an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing panic or fear” given its content; and (3) “consciously disregardes a substantial risk that the communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”  The appellate court explained that “the existence of a threat depends not on the mental state of the author, but on what the statement conveys to the person on the other end.”  Therefore, the court affirmed the adjudication, noting that “there is also no question that a reasonable listener would construe these as being a serious expression of intent to do harm.  (The student) was serving an in-school suspension at the time these notes were drafted and discovered. In today’s society, where mass shootings and gun violence are far too common—particularly in our schools—a note stating it is a “hit list” identifying the names of students currently attending the school and known to the writer would certainly cause grave concern, particularly when discovered in the school itself.”  State of Wisconsin v. I.T.S.

— In the District of Columbia (D.C.) officials “have launched a new School Safety Office to coordinate safety supports across District schools.”  According to the launch announcement it is “the District’s first centralized hub for coordinating school safety supports across DC Public Schools (DCPS), Public Charter schools, private and parochial schools.” The School Safety Office will bring together “agencies from the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice (DMPSJ) and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services (DMHHS) to help schools prevent crises, respond more effectively when concerns arise, and connect students and families to support before issues escalate.”

— In Arkansas, the company Campus Guardian Angel, presented their drones to hundreds of school resource officers and administrators at the 22nd annual Arkansas Safe Schools Conference in “their efforts to build non-lethal drones that could be on the frontlines of school shooting threats.”

— In Colorado, a public charter school in Douglas County “will be the first in Colorado to install a drone active shooter suppression system.”  Officials say that the campus will “use drones to protect students from active threats.”  According to their policy the drones will “launch within seconds of a confirmed threat. They’re flown remotely and give responders a live look. They can even spray pepper gel or fly at and pummel an attacker.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 14, 2026

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Illinois, the Appellate Court of Illinois ruled that a school policy to deny in-person enrollment to children “residing in a nonprofit shelter… violated their statutory right under (Illinois law) to attend public school.”  The ruling, which reversed the lower court, arose when three “minors in the legal custody of DCFS who were housed in a nonprofit shelter” were notified by the school district  … “that it intended to offer online learning only for shelter residents with safety concerns.”  The school officials were notified that “the shelter was not yet set up for online school… and (that shelter officials) would be enrolling those students in the District’s public schools.”  Despite this, “(educators) responded the same day, restating its prior objection … to providing minor residents of the shelter with in-person education.”  In the lawsuit, the DCFS made a demand for “immediate enrollment in District schools.”  The appellate court ruled that “the trial court erred in denying (the DCFS) motions” because the minors had a “right to attend public school as expressly granted in (state law).”  In reversing the lower court, the appellate court declared that “the Education for Homeless Children Act gives the minors the statutory right to attend public school. Section 1-20 of the Act states: “If the parents or guardians of a homeless child or youth choose to enroll the child in a school other than the school of origin, that school immediately shall enroll the homeless child or youth.””  In addition, the court held that the school district was “tasked with providing educational opportunities for local students. That duty may not be deferred indefinitely.”  The appellate court concluded that the “minors were likely to succeed on merits of their claim that it was in their best interests to enroll in public school in town where they resided, supporting (a court order preventing the school district from denying their enrollment.)”  M.D. v. Momence Community Unified School District 1

— In North Carolina, “the Wake County school board unanimously approved funding for repairs at three elementary schools after district officials said structural issues have made the buildings unsafe for students and staff until repairs are completed. All three buildings were built in the early 1990s.”

— In Missouri, new school safety legislation allows schools “to hire volunteer or paid guards called “Missouri Rangers” who could carry a gun on school grounds.”  “A ranger could be paid full time, part time or serve as a volunteer. If authorized by the hiring school district, a ranger could carry a firearm or other weapon capable of lethal use inside schools, on school buses and on district property.”

— In North Carolina, a new law “requires every North Carolina public school to establish a cardiac emergency response plan and provides $4 million to help ensure automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are accessible on school campuses.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 29, 2026

by  • 

— In Missouri, the United States District Court ruled that school officials did not violate the rights of a 12-year-old public school student who recreated and posted for a friend an anonymous Snapchat social media post she received that read, “Pray tm I’m about to shoot up the Jackson School.”  The friend – from a neighboring school district – reposted the message.  “Within an hour, School District administrators learned about the Snap.  School District administrators cancelled all classes …in response to the Snap.  In addition, the School District rescheduled a home varsity football game and cancelled a boys’ swim meet, a JV boys’ soccer game, football, cheerleading, and cross country practices, and a youth football tournament.”  The parents of the 12-year-old school student sued to challenge the school discipline of a ten day suspension followed by a 170-day suspension.  The court held that despite the fact that the student was passing along a post she did not create the school discipline did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights.  The court noted that the school officials were enforcing the “the Disruptive Conduct or Speech Policy and the False Alarms or Reports Policy” under a duty to protect the school environment.  Applying the rule of law of the case  Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. by and through Levy, the court ruled that “even though regulation of off-campus speech typically “falls within the zone of parental” authority, speech that threatens violence against a school community threatens the safety of the school environment. And that justifies intervention by school officials.”  The court further ruled that “even before Mahanoy, the Eighth Circuit extended Tinker’s substantial disruption analysis to “off-campus student speech where it is reasonably foreseeable that the speech will reach the school community and cause a substantial disruption to the educational setting.”  Most importantly, the court declared the reasonableness of the actions of the school officials in the light of current threats directed toward school campuses.  “That the Snap would cause a substantial disruption in the school community was also reasonably foreseeable. The test is an objective one, focusing on the reasonableness of the school administration’s response, not on the intent of the student… (and) the uncontroverted material facts establish that the Snap created a substantial disruption to (the) school community.”  A.N., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND, J.N., Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON R-II SCHOOL DISTRICT

— In Ohio “116 school districts and independent schools have armed staff members, as of June 17. Many of the schools are rural, but there are some urban and suburban districts.  Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill into law in 2022 that grants local boards of education authority to decide whether to allow their teachers and school workers to carry firearms.  It lowered the required training hours for armed personnel from 700 hours to at least 24, but school boards have the authority to mandate more hours. (More here)

— In Tennessee, officials in Williamson County Schools “announced … that starting this fall, students who want to ride their e-bikes or other electric transportation devices to school will have to complete a required safety training session.”

— In Minnesota “a new education law … requires school districts and charter schools to adopt policies to implement anonymous threat reporting systems. Districts have until June 30, 2027, to adopt a policy and until July 1, 2028, to have a system in place.  The systems must include a 24-hour mobile app, website or toll-free hotline for reporting dangerous, violent or threatening activity on school property or involving enrolled students.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 12, 2026

by  • 

— In New York, the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the refusal of the trial court to dismiss a lawsuit against school officials “regarding their failure to prepare an individual safety plan” for a special needs student who was “repeatedly harassed and assaulted by his classmates.”  The lower court and the appellate court characterized the dispute as “a case of harassment and assault.”  To summarize, “the victim was bullied by his fellow students throughout the 2017–2018 school year, while a student at a public middle school… as a result of these incidents, (the student) suffered injuries to both of his eyes, his head, his face, and his teeth.”  The parent “filed a notice of claim encompassing all of these incidents… alleging, inter alia, negligent supervision.”  The courts held that summary judgment was inappropriate because schools can be “held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”  The rule of law is that “schools are obligated to provide students with a safe place to acquire an education. Children, on a daily basis, leave the safety of their homes to attend school, where their parents expect that they will be provided a safe place to grow and learn. While they have physical custody of these children, schools are said to act “in loco parentis,” or in place of the parents, and in that role are required to provide the same protection and care for a child that a parent would provide.”  Along-side this rule is a doctrine to encourage litigation of lawsuits involving allegations of a continuing pattern of harassment in schools, called the “continuing wrong doctrine.”  According to this doctrine the usual time requirements for filing a lawsuit to notify school officials of a claim will not apply because in cases “arising out of repeated harassment and assault of student by his classmates…the faculty and administration of the school (are already) on notice.”  Therefore, in this case, “the time period for (a) student and his mother to file notice of claim regarding all of the incidents began to run when last incident occurred.”  Dismissal of the case through traditional judicial deference to the school officials was declined because “there is no indication in the record that any plan was devised for (the student’s) safety… and the “adequacy of a school’s supervision of its students is generally left to the (jury).”  J.A. v. City of New York

— In Colorado, “all 179 Colorado school districts must adopt a cellphone use policy by July 1, 2026 under a new state law.”  So far, “the state’s largest school district, Denver Public Schools just announced a bell-to-bell ban for cellphones and other wireless devices.”  One survey disclosed that “one of the most common objections was the fear that banning phones would cut off communication during a crisis.”

— In New York, a campus safety audit by the State Comptroller found “deficiencies in building access” policies in the Eldred Central School District that “could compromise the safety and security of students, staff, and visitors.”  The school district is located in Sullivan County, New York, with a small portion extending into northern Orange County.  According to the audit, school officials  “did not properly manage and monitor building access,”  including “accounts and devices (for persons who were longer authorized but) that still had assigned access badges in the district’s system.”

— In New Hampshire, the state is implementing a program designed to give police, firefighters and EMS personnel “a digital map of every school.”  The goal is to help first responders to “respond more quickly and effectively during school emergencies.”